alea-institute/kl3m-data-sample-004-shuffled huggingface dataset:
1

 Summary judgment is appropriate when the admissible evidence fails to demonstrate a

dispute of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. FED. R.

CIV. P. 56 (c) (2005). I may not make credibility determinations nor may I weigh the evidence in

deciding the motions before me. See Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Prods., 530 U.S. 133, 150

(2000). Therefore, Plaintiff’s federal claims and several of his state claims must proceed to trial. 

However, Plaintiff’s failure to support his intentional infliction of emotional distress claim with

expert medical evidence is fatal to that claim. See DeBellis v. Kulp, 166 F. Supp. 2d 255, 281

(E.D. Pa. 2001); see also Ascolese v. Se. Pa. Transp. Auth., 902 F. Supp. 533, 553 (E.D. Pa.

1995) (citing Kazatsky v. King David Mem’l Park, Inc., 527 A.2d 988, 995 (Pa. 1987)

(“[Pennsylvania] law requires plaintiffs claiming intentional infliction of emotional distress to

present expert medical evidence of harm.”).) Furthermore, Plaintiff’s trespass to chattels claim

also fails. Trespass to chattels involves the intentional dispossession or exercise of dominion

over the personal property of another. See Creative Dimensions In Mgmt., Inc. v. Thomas Group,

Inc., Civ. A. No. 96-6318, 1999 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5120, at *7 n.2 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 16, 1999); see

also Café Parissa, Inc. v. 1601 Assocs., No. 4272, 2005 Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. LEXIS 69, at *10

(Phila. Ct. Com. Pl. Jan. 7, 2005). Defendants found and confiscated both a small bag that they

suspected contained marijuana and a smoking device from Plaintiff’s apartment. (See Dunmire

Dep. at 13, 31-32.) However, there is no indication that Plaintiff’s trespass to chattels claim rests

upon either of these items. As Plaintiff’s response to Defendants’ motion does not mention any

other personal property that could serve as the basis for a trespass to chattels claim, judgment for

Defendants will also be entered on that claim. Plaintiff’s § 1983 claims against Officers Detz

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

TIMOTHY J. DUNMIRE, :

Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION

:

v. :

:

STEPHEN M. DETZ, et al., : No. 05-0081

Defendants. :

ORDER

AND NOW, this 6

th day of September, 2005, upon consideration of Defendants’ Motions

for Summary Judgment (Document Nos. 19 & 20), Plaintiff’s response thereto, and for the

following reasons, it is hereby ORDERED that the motions are GRANTED in part and DENIED

in part.

1

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 26 Filed 09/06/05 Page 1 of 2
and Zimmerman as well as his remaining state law claims shall proceed to trial. 

2

BY THE COURT:

Berle M. Schiller, J.

Case 2:05-cv-00081-BMS Document 26 Filed 09/06/05 Page 2 of 2
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

JAMES M. FANARO

: CIVIL ACTION

:

vs. :

: NO. 02-2772

UNUM LIFE INSURANCE CO. OF

AMERICA

O R D E R

AND NOW, TO WIT: This 1st day of July, 2003,

it having been reported that the issues between the parties in the above action has been settled

and upon Order of the Court pursuant to the provisions of Rule 41.1(b) of the Local Rules of

Civil Procedure of this Court , it is

ORDERED that the above action is DISMISSED with prejudice, pursuant to

agreement of counsel without costs.

MICHAEL E. KUNZ, Clerk of Court

BY: 

Stephen J. Iannacone 

 Deputy Clerk

Civ 2 (8/2000)

41(b).frm

Case 2:02-cv-02772-HH Document 18 Filed 07/01/2003 Page 1 of 1
----

Reference for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesfinanzhof (Germany) lodged on 8 June 2006 — Theodor Jäger v Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl

(Case C-256/06)

(2006/C 224/35)

Language of the case: German

Referring court

Bundesfinanzhof

Parties to the main proceedings

Applicant: Theodor Jäger

Defendant: Finanzamt Kusel-Landstuhl

Questions referred

Is it compatible with Article 73b(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community (now Article 56(1) EC) that for inheritance tax purposes:

if, in the case on an heir inheriting an estate made up of both domestic assets and foreign assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry, this results in a situation whereby, as a result of the fact that the assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry are situated abroad, the acquisition of the domestic assets is subject to higher inheritance tax than would be applicable if the assets consisting of agricultural land and forestry were also domestic assets?

----
#### Mrs. Ella Davis *vs.*Lester F. Baker.

Cumberland.

Opinion, October 28, 1942.

*230
      *Udell Bramson,*for the plaintiff.

*Robinson & Richardson*and *John D. Leddy,*for the defendant.

Sitting: Sturgis, C.J.,Thaxter, Hudson,Manser,Murchie, JJ.

Sturgis, C. J.

Action of negligence to recover compensation for personal injuries and property damage. In the trial court at the close of the evidence, on motion, the jury were instructed to return a verdict for the defendant. An exception to this ruling brings the case forward for review.

In the afternoon of October 7,1939, the plaintiff, while riding along Baxter Boulevard in Portland, without warning turned her automobile to the left and attempted to drive it across and into an intersecting road. At this time the defendant’s automobile was approaching from .the opposite direction undoubtedly in plain view, traveling at a reasonable rate of speed on its own side of the road and so close at hand as to make a collision inevitable. Although the plaintiff had an unobstructed view ahead, she did not see the defendant’s approaching car until it collided with the one in which she was riding and the damages to her person and property sued for resulted.

The driver of an automobile intending to cross a street or highway in front of another car approaching from the opposite direction is charged with the duty of so watching and timing the movements of the other car as to reasonably insure himself of a safe passage either in front or to the rear of such car and even to the point of stopping and waiting if necessary. A failure to comply with this rule spells negligence. *Fernald*v. *French,*121 Me., 4, 115 A., 420; *Reid et al.*v. *Walton et als.,*132 Me., 212, 168 A., 876; *Erswell*v. *Harmon,*139 Me., 47, 27 A. (2d), 107. It is equally well settled that in order to charge the driver *231coming from the opposite direction with negligence in pursuing his course in such a situation, it is the duty of the operator of the car making the crossing to make known his intention to cross. Unless and until the car coming on its own right of way has such notice, its driver cannot be charged with negligence because of his failure to cease his advance. *Fernald*v. *French,*supra. The application of these rules is not avoided by the failure of the driver making the crossing to see the car approaching from the opposite direction if its presence and approach are obvious. An automobile driver is bound to use his eyes to see seasonably that which is open and apparent and govern himself suitably. He is charged with seeing that which in the exercise of reasonable care ought to have been seen. *Callahan*v. *Bridges,*128 Me., 346, 147 A., 423.

It clearly appearing upon this record that the negligence of the plaintiff was the proximate cause of the collision upon which she bases this action, it was the duty of the Justice presiding in the trial court to direct a verdict for the defendant. The exception reserved is without merit.

*Exception overruled.*
(Reap. Dec. 10994)

#### Naftone International Corporation et al. *v.*United States

Entry No. 645, etc.

(Decided June 2, 1965)

*Bharretts, Paley & Garter*for the plaintiffs.

*John W. Douglas,*Assistant Attorney General, for the defendant.

Wilson, Judge:

These appeals for reappraisement listed in schedule “A,” attached to and made a part hereof, have been submitted for decision upon the following stipulation of counsel for the respective parties:

> IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED AND AGREED hy and between the parties hereto that the merchandise covered by the appeals for reappraisement listed in Schedule A, attached hereto and made a part hereof, consists of a coal tar chemical known as chloroferone which is classifiable under paragraph 27 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended and that this product is not on the final list of articles (T.D. 54521) which are excluded from the valuation under Customs Simplification Act of 1956.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that on the respective dates of exportation of the instant shipments, there was not any similar competitive domestic article manufactured or produced in the United States and that such or similar imported merchandise was not sold or offered for sale in the principal market of the United States for domestic consumption.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that the prices, at the times of exportation of the instant shipments, at which such or similar merchandise was freely sold in the principal markets of the country of exportation, in the usual wholesale quantities and the ordinary course of trade, for exportation to the United States including the cost of all containers and coverings and all other expenses incidental to placing the merchandise in condition, packed ready for shipment to the United States are the invoice unit prices.

> IT IS FURTHER STIPULATED AND AGREED that these appeals be submitted on this stipulation, being limited to the merchandise herein described.

On the agreed facts, I find export value, as that value is defined in section 402(b) of tlie Tariff Act of 1930, as amended by the Customs Simplification Act of 1956, T.D. 54165, to be the proper basis for the determination of the value of the merchandise here involved and that such values are the invoice unit prices.

Judgment will issue accordingly.
```

[Congressional Bills 118th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[S. 4016 Introduced in Senate (IS)]

<DOC>

118th CONGRESS
  2d Session
                                S. 4016

 To amend the Boulder Canyon Project Act to authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to expend amounts in the Colorado River Dam fund, and for 
                            other purposes.

_______________________________________________________________________

                   IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

                             March 21, 2024

 Ms. Sinema (for herself, Ms. Cortez Masto, Mr. Kelly, Ms. Rosen, Mr. 
Padilla, and Ms. Butler) introduced the following bill; which was read 
  twice and referred to the Committee on Energy and Natural Resources

_______________________________________________________________________

                                 A BILL

 
 To amend the Boulder Canyon Project Act to authorize the Secretary of 
the Interior to expend amounts in the Colorado River Dam fund, and for 
                            other purposes.

    Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the 
United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

    This Act may be cited as the ``Help Hoover Dam Act''.

SEC. 2. AUTHORIZATION TO EXPEND AMOUNTS.

    Section 2 of the Act of December 21, 1928 (43 U.S.C. 617, et seq.; 
commonly known as the ``Boulder Canyon Project Act''), is amended by 
adding at the end the following:
    ``(f) The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to expend moneys 
in the fund, including moneys in account XXXR5656P1, that were and 
hereafter are recovered on a non-reimbursable basis, for any authorized 
activity, including operations, maintenance, investigation and cleanup 
actions, and capital improvements, within the Boulder Canyon Project at 
Hoover Dam or on land used for the construction and operation of the 
Hoover Dam, subject to the review and approval of the Boulder Canyon 
Project contractors as identified in the Hoover Power Allocation Act of 
2011 (Public Law 112-72).''.
                                 <all>
```
Exhibit 32.1


CERTIFICATION OF CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER PURSUANT TO SECTION 1350 OF CHAPTER 63
                       OF TITLE 18 OF THE UNITED STATES CODE


I,  Jonathan  P.  Ward,  the  Chairman  and  Chief  Executive   Officer  of  The
ServiceMaster  Company,  certify that (i) the Quarterly  Report on Form 10-Q for
the quarter  ended  September 30, 2005,  fully  complies  with  requirements  of
Section  13(a)  or  15(d) of the  Securities  Exchange  Act of 1934 and (ii) the
information  contained  in such  Form  10-Q  fairly  presents,  in all  material
respects, the financial condition and results of operations of The ServiceMaster
Company.

                                       By: /S/ JONATHAN P. WARD
                                       ----------------------------------------
                                           Jonathan P. Ward
                                           Chairman and Chief Executive Officer
                                           November 4, 2005



A signed  original of this  written  statement  required by Section 906 has been
provided to The ServiceMaster  Company and will be retained by The ServiceMaster
Company and  furnished to the  Securities  and Exchange  Commission or its staff
upon request.
EXHIBIT 13.1

CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO 18 U.S.C.  SECTION 1350, AS ADOPTED PURSUANT
TO SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

     In connection with the annual report of Industrial Development Bank of
Israel Ltd. (the "Company") on Form 20-F for the year ended December 31, 2004 as
filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date hereof (the
"Report"), I, Uri Galili, General Manager of the Company, certify, pursuant to
18 U.S.C. Section 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the Sarbanes-Oxley
Act of 2002, that:

(1)  The Report fully complies with the requirements of Section 13(a) or 15(d)
     of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

(2)  The information contained in the Report fairly presents, in all material
     respects, the financial condition and results of operations of the Company.

/s/ Uri Galili
--------------
Name: Uri Galili
Title: General Manager
Date: July 13, 2006
<Page>
                                                                    Exhibit 32.1

                           CERTIFICATION PURSUANT TO
                             18 U.S.C. SECTION 1350
                             AS ADOPTED PURSUANT TO
                 SECTION 906 OF THE SARBANES-OXLEY ACT OF 2002

   The undersigned, Eleanor L. Thomas, President (chief executive officer) of
the managing owner, Prudential Securities Futures Management Inc. (the 'Managing
Owner'), of World Monitor Trust--Series C ('Series C'), hereby certifies,
pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1350, as adopted pursuant to Section 906 of the
Sarbanes-Oxley Act of 2002, that:

   (1) Series C's Quarterly Report on Form 10-Q for the period ending June 27,
       2003, as filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission on the date
       hereof (the 'Quarterly Report'), fully complies with the requirements of
       Section 13(a) or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934; and

   (2) The information contained in the Quarterly Report fairly presents, in all
       material respects, the financial condition and results of operations of
       Series C.

/s/ Eleanor L. Thomas
------------------------------------------------------
Eleanor L. Thomas
President (chief executive officer) of the Managing Owner
August 11, 2003
Before the First Division,

March 31, 1948

No. 52243.

petition 6619-R (New York).

#### Bairwol Co. *v.*United States,

Opinion by

Oliver, P. J.

A partner in the petitioning firm testified that- the petitioner purchased the art work and story from which plates were made; that matrices were supplied to a Mexican company for printing the inserts of the books; that the books were shipped to this country where covers and binding were obtained to complete them; that petitioner, the agent of the Mexican seller, after completion of the books, sold them to a distributing company; and that the appraised price of 4.85 cents was arrived at from prices disclosed in the contracts made by the petitioner with the distributing company. Before the goods were shipped, the witness visited the United States Treasury attache's office in Mexico City in an endeavor to determine the price for entry purposes and was given a formula to compute the cost. He instructed the shipper to follow said formula and the shipper and petitioner, after taking into consideration all proper costs and charges, including the profit against the item to be made up, arrived at a valuation of 4 cents for the purpose of making entry.

The customhouse broker testified that he submitted a request for information to the appraiser at which time the examiner had no information; that the merchandise was then entered at the invoice price; that subsequently he was advised to amend the entry, but while awaiting instructions from the petitioner to amend, the entry was passed at an advanced value. From the entire record it was held that the petitioner and its broker disclosed all information in their possession to the proper customs officials and that there was no intent to defraud the revenue of the United States. The petition was therefore granted.
1 

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Case No. CIV-S-04-0536 DFL KJM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

Spencer T. Malysiak 

State Bar #084654 

SPENCER T. MALYSIAK LAW CORPORATION 

1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 145B 

Folsom, CA 95630 

Telephone (916) 985-4400 

Facsimile (916) 985-0100 

Attorney for Petitioner 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

GARNAS & RABE CONSTRUCTION, INC., 

doing business as JB Construction 

 Petitioner, 

vs. 

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL 

REVENUE, 

 Respondent. 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

Case No. CIV-S-04-0536 DFL KJM 

STIPULATION AND REQUEST FOR 

ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITH 

PREJUDICE, AND [PROPOSED] ORDER 

THEREON 

) 

Pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the parties hereby request 

an Order dismissing the complaint with prejudice. The parties are to bear their respective costs, 

including any possible attorneys fees or other expenses of this litigation. 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

/ / / / / 

Case 2:04-cv-00536-DFL -KJM Document 11 Filed 07/11/05 Page 1 of 2
2 

Request for Dismissal and Order Thereon Case No. CIV-S-04-0536 DFL KJM

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

The parties, through their counsel, so stipulate and request an order dismissing the case. 

Dated: June 30, 2005 Respectfully Submitted: 

 

s/SPENCER T. MALYSAK_____________

 SPENCER T. MALYSIAK, attorney for 

GARNAS & RABE CONSTRUCTION, INC. 

Petitioner 

1180 Iron Point Road, Suite 145B 

Folsom, CA 95630 

(916) 985-4400 

Dated: June 30, 2005 MCGREGOR W. SCOTT 

 United States Attorney Client Privilege 

 s/G. PATRICK JENNINGS______________

 G. PATRICK JENNINGS 

 Trial Attorney, Tax Division 

 U.S. Department of Justice 

 Post Office Box 683 

 Ben Franklin Station 

 Washington, D.C. 20044 

ORDER 

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT the Complaint filed March 17, 2004 in the abovecaptioned case is dismissed with prejudice upon the stipulation of the parties. The parties are to 

bear their respective costs, including possible attorneys fees or other expenses of this litigation. 

Dated: 7/7/2005 

 _/s/ David F. Levi_________ 

 DAVID F. LEVI 

 United States District Judge 

Case 2:04-cv-00536-DFL -KJM Document 11 Filed 07/11/05 Page 2 of 2
Exhibit 21

SUBSIDIARIES OF INTERNATIONAL MULTIFOODS CORPORATION

The following is a list of the Company's subsidiaries as of March 2, 2002, except for unnamed subsidiaries which, considered in the aggregate as a single
subsidiary, would not constitute a significant subsidiary.

|Name of Subsidiary                       |                                     | Jurisdiction
of
Incorporation
|---------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------- | -----------------------------
|Fantasia Confections, Inc.               |                                     | California                   
|Martha White Foods, Inc.                 |                                     | Delaware                     
|Multifoods Bakery Distributors, Inc.     |                                     | Delaware                     
|Multifoods Bakery International, Inc.    |                                     | Delaware                     
|                                         | Inversiones 91060, C.A.             |                              
|Multifoods Distribution Management, Inc. |                                     | Delaware                     
|                                         | Better Brands, Inc.                 |                              
|                                         | Multifoods Distribution Group, Inc. |                              
|                                         |                                     |                              
|Multifoods Inc.                          |                                     | Delaware                     
|Multifoods Inc.                          |                                     | Minnesota                    
|Robin Hood Multifoods Inc.               |                                     | Ontario                      
|                                         | Multifoods Ltd.                     |                              
|                                         | Gourmet Baker Inc.                  |                              
|                                         | 980964 Ontario Limited              |                              
|Windmill Holdings Corp.                  |                                     | California                   

---

QuickLinks
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 11 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 1 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 11 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 2 of 3
Case 2:02-cv-20138-HB Document 11 Filed 05/10/2007 Page 3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR

THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

BLACKWATER SECURITY, |

CONSULTING, LLC, ET AL. |

Plaintiffs, |

| CIVIL ACTION NO. 05-CV-6020

v. |

|

WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES |

INSURANCE COMPANY, ET AL. |

Defendants. |

ORDER

AND NOW, this _____ day of March, 2007, upon consideration of Evanston Insurance

Company’s (“Evanston”) Motion for Admission of Counsel Pro Hac Vice (Doc. 18), IT IS

HEREBY ORDERED and DECREED that the Motion is GRANTED. L.D. Simmons, II,

Esquire and Brian A. Kahn, Esquire are admitted in this case as counsel pro hac vice for

Evanston. 

BY THE COURT:

/S/ Petrese B. Tucker

__________________________

Hon. Petrese B. Tucker, U.S.D.J.

Case 2:05-cv-06020-PBT Document 43 Filed 03/26/2007 Page 1 of 1

BLACKWATER SECURITY CONSULTING, LLC et al v. WESTCHESTER SURPLUS LINES INSURANCE COMPANY et al Doc. 43

Dockets.Justia.com
EX-10.1






Exhibit 10.1




FIRST AMENDMENT

TO THE

KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN

1991 AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK OPTION

AND PERFORMANCE AWARD PLAN

(As Amended and Restated Effective August 7, 2007)




THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE KANSAS CITY SOUTHERN 1991 AMENDED AND RESTATED STOCK OPTION AND
PERFORMANCE AWARD PLAN (the “Plan”), is to become effective July 2, 2008.




1. In Section 1.3 of the Plan, the date “July 14, 2008” is replaced with the date “October
14, 2008,” so that as amended Section 1.3 of the Plan shall read as follows:



1.3 Duration of the Plan. The Plan shall remain in effect, subject to
the right of the Board or the Committee to amend or terminate the Plan at any time
pursuant to Article 15 hereof, until the earlier of October 14, 2008 or the date all
Shares subject to the Plan shall have been purchased or acquired and the
restrictions on all Restricted Shares granted under the Plan shall have lapsed,
according to the Plan’s provisions. However, in no event may an Incentive Stock
Option be granted under the Plan on or after the date 10 years following the earlier
of (i) the date the Plan was adopted and (ii) the date the Plan was approved by the
stockholders of the Company.



2. In all other respects, the terms of the Plan shall remain unchanged.